gotohellworld

Are you really believing that a No Devil game is a game of skill and not one where luck doesn't play a major role? In all honesty?

Whether the law indicates that a game must be X% skill based in order to be considered a skill game doesn't matter. LL's policy is that a game must have no chance involved. Games on the list are all involving chance, and worringly a big amount of it. Games such as archery, golf, racing, hockey, etc. are skill based. That's what skill gaming should be about. But maybe clicking numbers on a game board is the pinnacle of skill achievement for the SL population, thus making it "skill based"?

Phil Deakins wrote: gotohellworld wrote: So let me get this straight... game creators had to submit their games to lawyers who had to certify that the games are not games where chance is involved in either as a part or as a whole? Looking at the list of games approved, how could any serious lawyer approve them? A degree of chance is allowed in skill games, but only a relatively small degree. The thing is, if a lawyer testifies (on paper) that a game is in compliance with the rules, then LL thinks they're corporate back is covered should the law raise its head. From LL's point of view, they don't care one way or the other about chance and skill. They only care about covering themselves. That's my opinion, anyway. Personally, I think they are fooling themselves if that's what they think. Oh, I certainly agree that the lawyer requirement is simply so LL can cover themselves on a legal basis as any lawsuit will then be redirected to the game creator/operator. As for a degree of chance being allowed, games such as No Devil certainly doesn't fit 1) whose outcome is determined by skill and is not contingent, in whole or in material part, upon chance. The way I see how a game that involves chance could fit as a skill game, is one where optimal play has a long term expected value that is positive for the player. Poker, played against other opponents, is one game that would fit this as while any individual hand is based on chance, the expected value in the long run is positive and the player will be a winner. Optimal play in games in this list will only lower the negative expected value, but not make any player an expected winner. In my opinion, the gambling (and I call this gambling) side of SL had only one skill component: Finding game operators who set up their games with scores to beat that were set too low for the odds they offered. That was the only way to be an expected winner. In a very limited ecosystem, I don't see this happening like at the beginnings of SL.

So let me get this straight... game creators had to submit their games to lawyers who had to certify that the games are not games where chance is involved in either as a part or as a whole? Looking at the list of games approved, how could any serious lawyer approve them? Just like how the initial gambling ban was a fiasco since pretty much nothing changed after it (except the removal of poker and slot machines), this implementation, especially with the involvement of lawyers, is a joke. As much as I would love the gambling situation to be back prior to the initial ban, I can only say that I'm disappointed at how the new "ban" is being implemented.